AN N ALS OF GEOPH YSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.

4401/ AG-7593

Communicating Seismic Risk:

the Geoethical Challenges of a
People-Centred, Participatory Approach
IAIN S. STEWART

JOH AN N A ICKERT
Su stainable Earth Institu te, University of Plym ou th, U nited Kingd om
iain.stew art@p lym ou th.ac.u k
johanna.ickert@p lym ou th.ac.u k

ROBIN LACASSIN
Institu t d e Physiqu e d u Globe d e Paris, Sorbonne Paris Cité University, CN RS, France
lacassin@ip gp .fr

Abstract

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) encourages scientists to participate in bottom-up risk
communication approaches that directly engage hazard-prone populations. Effective communication of seismic risks not
only has economic impacts in terms of hazard mitigation but also provides social value in potentially empowering the
marginalized populations that disproportionately live in high-risk areas. This emphasis on community-focused disaster
preparedness, however, presents a novel set of communication challenges for geoscientists. Few scientists have training
in or experience of translating their science for lay publics, and conveying complex risk information is especially difficult
in circumstances where scientific issues are socially contested and politically charged. Recognising that disaster threats
can create troublesome information battlegrounds, this paper explores the ethical and practical aspects of seismic risk
communication, motivated by an early-career earth scientists’ workshop in Istanbul that voiced the concerns of young
geoscientists confronted firsthand by at-risk publics. Those concerns form the basis of a wider review of the risk commu-
nication issues that are likely to be encountered if community-centred participatory DRR approaches are to be adopted
by earthquake science researchers.

1. IN TROD UCTION The Send ai Fram ew ork for Disaster Risk Re-
d u ction (SFDRR) offers a new global instru -

‘T
here has to be a broader and a more peo-
ple-centred preventive approach to disas-
ter risk. Disaster risk reduction practices
need to be multi-hazard and multi-sectoral, inclu-
sive and accessible in order to be efficient and effec-
tive. (...) There is a need for the public and private sec-
tors and civil society organizations, as well as academ-
ia and scientific and research institutions, to work
more closely together and to create opportunities for
collaboration.’ (Send ai Fram ew ork, 2015, p.7).
m ent for confronting natu ral hazard s, setting
ou t an am bitiou s holistic strategy that em brac-
es the need for a ‘… full and meaningful partici-
pation of relevant stakeholders at appropriate levels’
and the ‘… empowerment and inclusive, accessible
and non-discriminatory participation of the most
marginalised publics’ (UN ISDR, 2015). As su ch,
the Send ai Fram ew ork d efines a new social
contract betw een the hazard scientist and the
w id er pu blic (Ism ail-Zad eh et al., 2017). It is a

1
 AN N ALS OF GEOPH YSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/ AG-7593
contract that encou rages the scientific com m u -
nity to end eavou r, alongsid e their existing
technical expertise, to ‘… support action by local
communities and authorities; and support the inter-
face between policy and science for decision-making’
(UN ISDR, 2015). This vision of citizen-oriented
research is m im icked in other areas of geo-
societal concerns, su ch as energy, clim ate
change and infrastru ctu re d evelopm ent (e.g.
Pid geon et al., 2014; Kam lage and N anz, 2017),
and is one increasingly end orsed by m ajor in-
ternational sp onsors of scientific research. The
Eu ropean Com m ission, for exam ple, changed
the title of their ‘Science and Society’ p ro-
gram m e to ‘Science in Society’ and u nd er H ori-
zon 2020 d eveloped gu id elines arou nd ‘Re-
sponsible Research and Innovation’ (RRI) w ith
the d eliberate goal of stim u lating reflexivity
and involving a range of social actors - scien-
tists, citizens, p oliticians and bu sinesses - m ore
closely in scientific end eavou rs that w ere co-
d esigned and co-prod u ced by society (Ow en et
al., 2012).
Inherent in this shift from the conventional
‘top-d ow n’, ‘expert-led ’ ap p roach to the em er-
gent ‘bottom -u p’, ‘com m u nity-led ’ app roach is
the challenge of ‘the last m ile’ - a term bor-
row ed from the telecom m u nications sector, in
w hich the final connection betw een the con-
su m er and the technology d eterm ines how ef-
fective it is for the vast m arket of u sers. The
challenge of reaching the last m ile (in this case,
reaching those people d irectly at risk) has b e-
com e a critical notion that increasingly inform s
ou r thinking abou t a far w id er range of natu ral
risk challenges (e.g. Shah , 2006), althou gh in
keeping w ith the shift to a people-centred focu s
of d isaster risk red u ction d iscou rse it has be-
com e re-fram ed as ‘the first m ile’ (e.g. Kelm an
and Glanz, 2014; Bau d oin et al., 2016).
In ad d ition to inform ing civic officials and d is-
sem inating to policy m akers, com m u nicating
that first m ile to reach the p eople w ho d irectly
face extrem e hazard threats ou ght to be a fairly
u ncontentiou s com p onent in hazard prep ared -
ness and m itigation efforts. Yet, a particip atory
ap proach m arks a m ethod ological m ove aw ay
from the prevailing m od e of know led ge tran s-
fer tow ard s m ore inclu sive transd isciplinary
strategies that incorporate peer-role m od els,
ad opt social netw ork-based strategies and d i-
rectly engage w ith com m u nities in m otivating
prep ared ness actions (Schneid ew ind et al.,
2016; Schlosser and Pfirm an, 2012; Drake et al.,
2015; Bend ito and Barrios, 2016; Ism ail-Zad eh
et al., 2017). This new , transd isciplinary science
has been controversial (Schneid ew ind and
Brod ow ski, 2014) and there are cu rrently no
gu id elines for w hat constitu tes su ccessfu l p ar-
ticipation and w hat m easu res prom ote bu ild -
ing tru st betw een civil society and its organiz a-
tions and science. Despite the international
pu sh for particip atory ap proaches, there is a
lack of social sp aces and interactive form ats
that enable exchange and joint learning be-
tw een technical specialists and lay pu blics. A
review of people-centred ap proaches for d isas-
ter risk m anagem ent d escribed :
‘… a complex landscape characterized by insuffi-
cient resources at the local level, and lack of will-
ingness among the public at risk to share responsi-
bility for disaster risk management with author-
ities. If official authorities are to implement the new
people-centred approach, they must better under-
stand residents’ perspectives and responsibility ex-
pectations, become more competent communicators,
and be willing to engage in long-term dialogue with
communities’ (Scolobig et al., 2015, p.202).
The challenge of how to com m u nicate effec-
tively to at-risk com m u nities, therefore, lies at
the heart of the people-centred ap proach to
d isaster risk red u ction. Despite this, few geo-
scientists have been trained in conveying their
technical know -how beyond the acad em ic and
professional w orld , and , for those that have,
that training u su ally prioritises peer -to-peer
com m u nication skills and how to m anage rela-
tions w ith jou rnalists and better access the
broad er print and broad cast m ed ia (Liverm an
2008). In contrast, ord inary people ‘on the
grou nd ’ - from local com m u nity grou ps to civic
au thorities - tend to be less fam iliar and m ore
rem ote (i.e. hard er-to-reach) au d iences for m ost
scientists (Liverm an 2008, Stew art and N ield
2013).
In ad d ition to being ‘hard er to reach’, pu blic
au d iences often m eet ‘science’ at tim es of crisis.
In em ergency situ ations, scientific u nd erstan d -
ings bu ilt u p grad u ally over m any d ecad es are
expected to be d elivered by ‘experts’ in neat
2
 AN N ALS OF GEOPH YSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/ AG-7593
m ed ia sou nd -bites and u nam bigu ou s pu blic
statem ents (Stew art and N ield , 2013). Distilling
com plex technical know led ge into d igestible
popu lar risk m essages that can be read ily con-
su m ed by lay au d iences is a persistent chal-
lenge for those w orking at the science/ pu blic
interface. In the im m ed iacy of an em erging d is-
aster, people tend to behave in w ays and m ake
d ecisions that are not anticipated by scientific
experts and by em ergency m anagers.
Ou tsid e of crisis situ ations, com m u nicating u n-
certainty to at-risk pu blics is associated w ith
several challenges, su ch as id entifying the facts
relevant to recipients’ d ecisions w hile d eter-
m ining the relevant u ncertainties, estim ating
their im p act, form u lating possible m essages,
and evalu ating their su ccess (Fischhoff and
Davis, 2014). In ad d ition, bu ild ing com m u nity
aw areness of potential risks can also be d iffi-
cu lt if people hold seriou s m isconceptions
abou t basic science concepts, if the scientific
issu es are socially contested , and if the hazard
threat is p olitically charged (Stew art and Lew is
2017).
The resu lt is that the science/ pu blic know led ge
interface can qu ickly becom e m ore like the
frontline of an inform ation battlefield . In su ch
com bative circu m stances, those conveying the
risk of natu ral hazard s to com m u nities threat-
ened by them can find them selves navigating a
carefu l com m u nication cou rse betw een the
technical nu ances and u ncertainties of extrem e
natu ral events on the one sid e and the norm a-
tive nu ances and u ncertainties of m ed ia prac-
tice and hu m an behaviou r on the other.
The d ilem m as faced by geoscientists in com -
m u nicating risk d u ring seism ic crises have
been m ost extensively d ocu m ented and acu tely
d issected for the 2009 L’Aqu ila (Italy) earth-
qu ake and su bsequ ent legal trial (Alexand er,
2010 and 2014; Marzocchi, 2012; Jord an, 2013;
Di Capu a and Pep poloni, 2014; Dolce and Di
Bu cci, 2014; Mu cciarelli, 2014; Yeo, 2014; Cocco
et al., 2015; DeVasto et al., 2016). Althou gh in i-
tially fram ed as a trial of scientists w ho ‘failed ’
to pred ict an earthqu ake, it is m ore w id ely in-
terpreted as a failu re in risk com m u nication, as
Oreskes (2016, p.254) notes:
‘The case centered not on the matter of whether or
not earthquakes can be predicted, but on political
questions about the social obligations of scientists
speaking in official advisory capacities, and epistem-
ic questions about the appropriate manner in which
risk assessments should be performed. The questions
at stake were what information scientists should
have offered the public, and how that information
should have been communicated. They were not so
much matters of scientific facts, but matters of how
those facts were rendered and communicated.’
Su ch ‘fau lty’ com m u nications arose becau se
seism ic crises are not sim ply geophysical ph e-
nom ena bu t they are also socio-political inci-
d ents. Their threat can m otivate vested bu si-
ness interests to opp ose the science
(Geschw ind , 1997 and 2011) and their incid ence
can be catalysts of cu ltu ral change or triggers
for political u pheaval (Clancey, 2006). As is ev-
id ent in other areas of science, notably clim ate
change d iscou rse, conflicts of interest can resu lt
in ‘m anu factu red u ncertainty’ and the d eliber-
ate obfu scation or m isrepresentation of info r-
m ation for w hich there is broad scientific con-
sensu s (Michaels, 2005; Michaels and Monfor-
ton, 2006; Oreskes and Conw ay, 2007). In su ch
contested social sp aces, the w isd om an d re-
sponsibility of geoscientific experts in offering
gu id ance or ad vocacy has been qu estioned :
‘W hether scientists providing expert input into pol-
icy issues should be guided by extra-scientific values
(and if so, whose values, and which values) in either
the conduct or communication of their science, and
even whether they should go beyond their scientific
competence strictly speaking and provide advice
about policy options, is open to debate’ (Yeo 2014).
This societal entanglem ent has potentially
transform ative im plications for the geoscien-
tists that stu d y them , as acknow led ged by
Oreskes (2016, p .261):
‘Earthquake safety has never been simply a matter of
geophysics, but most earthquake scientists … have
traditionally understood their job to be to study
how, when, and why earthquakes happen, and only
to a lesser extent (if at all) how to communicate that
knowledge to engineers and officials responsible for
mitigation, or to the general public … But in the
contemporary world, the inter-relationship between
knowledge and safety is not easily disentangled.
3
 AN N ALS OF GEOPH YSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/ AG-7593

Seismology is no longer simply a matter of geophysics, if
it ever was. It involves consideration of ethics, values,
and monetary and social costs. L’Aquila shows that sci-
entists can no longer ignore the social factors that affect
and even control how damaging a particular earthquake
may be. Earthquake prediction is a social science.’
In this paper, we carry forw ard Oreskes’s prov o-
cation that earthquake science is a social science
by considering the issue of how to communicate
seismic risk in a public sphere in which the sci-
ence is socially contested and politically charged.
Our consideration arises not from Italy but from
Istanbul, another troublesome earthquake hot
spot, and viewed not from the perspective of sen-
ior hazard specialists but instead from that of ear-
ly-career geoscientists. Motivated by their emer-
gent concerns, w e examine key themes of risk
communication that might be important if neigh-
bourhood-based participatory DRR is to be
adopted by the earthquake science community.
2. CASE STUDY: A SEISMIC CONFRONTATION
IN ISTANBUL
Istanbu l, a m ega-city of 14.5 m illion resid ents,
faces a m ajor earthqu ake threat (H ori et al.,
2017). Over the last centu ry, a w estw ard -
m igrating sequ ence of large earthqu akes has
left one prom inent segm ent of the N orth An a-
tolian Fau lt u nru ptu red (Arm ijo et al., 1999;
Stein et al., 1997; Le Pichon et al., 2003). That
segm ent lies im m ed iately sou th of the city, b e-
neath the w aters of the Marm ara Sea and seis-
m ologists expect this seism ic gap to be filled by
a M >7 earthqu ake in the com ing d ecad es (Par-
sons et al., 2000; Parsons, 2004; Bohnhoff et al.,
2013). The lethality of the threat is ev id ent from
a d estru ctive earthqu ake that stru ck to the east
of Istanbu l in Au gu st 1999, killing 17,000 peo-
ple and m aking ap proxim ately half a m illion
people hom eless (Özerd em , 1999). Risk scenar-
ios for a fu tu re Marm ara Sea earthqu ake antic-
ipate significant fatalities and w id espread
d am age to resid ential hou sing and u rban infr a-
stru ctu re. For exam p le, a fu tu re M 7.25 earth-
qu ake on this offshore segm ent is expected to
heavily d am age or d estroy 2-4% of the near
1,000,000 bu ild ings in Istanbu l, w ith 9-15% of
the bu ild ings receiving m ed iu m d am age and
20-34% of the bu ild ings lightly d am aged (Erd ik
et al., 2011; Erd ik, 2013). Shaken by the 1999
earthqu akes, Istanbu l’s civic au thorities at-
tem pted to ad d ress the acu te seism ic vu lner a-
bility of the city throu gh a series of legislative

Figure 1: There is a strong cultural influence on people’s perspectives on the perceived earthquake threat. Based on in-
terviews with residents in earthquake-prone parts of USA , Japan and Turkey, most participants indicated a high aware-
ness of seismic adjustment but there was much variation in belief about the levels of human agency and control. Turkish
participants tended strongly toward fatalism, regarded earthquakes as divine providence but displayed a heightened fo-
cus on vulnerabilities caused by institutional and collective failings, implying that the consequences of earthquakes were
largely determined by the actions of people and society. Redrawn from Joffe et al. (2013, figure 4).

4
 AN N ALS OF GEOPH YSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/ AG-7593

m easu res facilitating u rban renew al. The con-
troversial im plem entation of the 2005 renew al
law N o. 5366 in the city’s historic d istricts au -
thorised the central governm ent hou sing d e-
velopm ent agency (TOKI) to u nd ertake regen-
eration projects in seism ically vu lnerable
gecekondu (squ atter) neighbou rhood s, p rojects
that m et significant local resistance (Karam an,
2008; Unsal, 2015). That resistance reflects legis-
lative changes that have been im posed by civic
au thorities. In 2012, the u rban regeneration law
N o. 6306 extend ed regeneration beyond the
historic d istricts, targeting neighbou rhood s
that are generally not those m ost vu lnerable to
earthqu ake d estru ction bu t instead represent
areas w here red evelopm ent is highly econom i-
cally p rofitable (Gibson and Gökşin, 2016). De-
spite a recognition that ‘seismic risk in the build-
ings in Istanbul is mostly dominated by building
vulnerability, not hazard’ (Yaku t et al., 2012,
p.1533), there is w id espread d istru st of Istan-
bu l’s retrofitting and reconstru ction m easu res
even am ong resid ents of som e of the city’s
m ost at-risk qu arters (Green, 2008; Islam , 2010;
Karam an, 2013; Ku yu cu , 2014).
The roots of this d istru st go d eep into the Tu r k-
ish ‘earthqu ake psyche’. A com parison of po p-
u lations living in earthqu ake-prone areas in Ja-
pan, USA and Tu rkey revealed that especially
strong and varied em otions perm eate Tu rkish
earthqu ake perceptions and attitu d es (Joffe et
al., 2013) (Fig. 1). Direct experiences w ith the
1999 earthqu akes have provoked heightened
feelings of w orry, fear and anxiety, bu t in ad d i-
tion there w ere strong expressions of corru p -
tion and incom p etence of p oliticians, civil serv-
ants, planning regu lators and the constru ction
ind u stry (Fig. 2). For m any, it w as this end em ic
corru ption, greed and selfishness that w as seen
to prod u ce u rban vu lnerability, and in tu rn
created a heightened sense of d issonance (fatal-
ism ) and w eakened sense of control and self-
efficacy. Thu s, d espite a su bstantial aw areness
of the earthqu ake risk, Joffe et al. (2013) report
that Tu rkish respond ents w ere far less likely
than their US or Jap anese equ ivalents to ad opt
seism ic ad ju stm ent m easu res, a tend ency also
ap parent in other stu d ies (Ru stem li and
Karanci, 1999; Özerd em , 1999; Eraybar et al.,

Figure 2: The emotional and moral responses of people to earthquakes vary in strength and character between three eart h-
quake-prone countries – USA, Japan and Turkey. Fear and anxiety-related emotions dominate in all three countries, but
Turkish participants show a greater prevalence of grief- and trauma- related emotions and display considerably more emo-
tions relating to moral issues such as corruption (e.g., anger, distrust, blame). From Joffe et al. (2013, figure 3).

5
 AN N ALS OF GEOPH YSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/ AG-7593
2010; Tekeli‐Yeşil et al., 2010a, 2010b, and 2011;
Oral et al., 2015; Taylan, 2015). Ind eed , Joffe et
al. (2013) report that the Tu rkish respond ents
w ho felt them selves m ost vu lnerable to eart h-
qu akes d isplayed the low est ad option of anti-
seism ic ad ju stm ent m easu res. In su ch a socially
polarised and politically sensitive context, d e-
veloping neighbou rhood -based p articip atory
strategies for seism ic risk com m u nication
w ou ld ap pear d ifficu lt.
To explore this d ifficu lty, a com m u nication
training w orkshop for early-career geoscien-
tists held in Istanbu l d irectly confronted tw elve
PhD and postd octoral researchers w ith the
overtly politicised natu re of the Istanbu l earth-
qu ake threat (Ickert and Stew art, 2016). As p art
of the w orkshop the you ng geoscientists visited
at-risk neighbou rhood s w ithin the city to hear
from resid ents and com m u nity lead ers abou t
how the city’s seism ic risk w as m anifest ‘on the
grou nd ’, w itnessing firsthand the effects of the
u npopu lar u rban renew al transform ation pr o-
gram m e. Follow ing this field provocation , Ick-
ert and Stew art (2016) report how the w ork-
shop particip ants w ere invited to d iscu ss their
perceived role as com m u nicators. Across the
grou p of you ng researchers there w as broad
agreem ent on the relevance and im portance of
their expert know led ge reaching at-risk com -
m u nities, bu t consid erable d iscu ssion abou t the
ap propriate w ay and level of engaging w ith the
pu blic.
Researcher 1: If you know that something will hap-
pen [...] that many people could die [...] you will
have to communicate that. Y ou have to com-
municate that in order to prepare people.
Althou gh this view w as w id ely shared , m u ch
d ebate centred on the participants’ ind ivid u al
u nd erstand ings of the role and responsibility of
geocom m u nicators, and w hat im plications this
had for their p rofessional life. For som e, the
d isincentives to com m u nicating m ore w id ely
w ere practical as w ell as m oral:
Researcher 8: (...) It is our responsibility. But the
problem is: W e are not paid for that. W e have to
maintain a career as well. A nd this is only one
of the little aspects that are very relevant. W e
have to do it for the sake of it. W e do a lot of
things for science which are for free. A nd we al-
so have a hard time to maintain a pace...and to
do publications, to find the next position and so
on. So it is a very difficult balance.
Researcher 7: There is no real reward.
Researcher 8: W ell, it depends on how you interpret
reward.
Som e particip ants fou nd it cru cial not to blu r
the bou nd ary betw een scientists and non -
scientists and to retain their role as “objectiv e
experts”, feeling u neasy w ith the prospect of
operating beyond the geoscience realm .
Researcher 11: I think you should do your best to
improve your analyses and get proper results
and publish and explain these results to proper
people. For example, the government or the ad-
ministration. A nd these people should know
what to do with this. Y ou can give them sug-
gestions what you think is the best idea to use
the results and how to protect the people, but the
decision belongs to them.
Researcher 4: In my humble opinion, science has
something to do with knowledge. Policies, haz-
ard mitigation, those are things related to
judgement, to decision-making. Those are two
completely different things.
For som e p articipants, a d irect engagem ent
w ith resid ents, p articu larly in politicized con-
texts, w as consid ered as negatively affecting
their role as scientists, potentially risking a loss
of repu tation, tru st and scientific cred ibility
d u e to actu al or perceived ad vocacy positions.
Others, w hilst acknow led ging these w orries,
stressed instead the ‘m oral and professional
d u ty’ to d irectly provid e their expertise to
com m u nities, especially in situ ations w here in-
habitants face an acu te risk and openly requ est
closer collaborations w ith scientists. For them ,
there w as a ‘risk of losing pu blic tru st’ w hen
not reacting to shortcom ings of com m u nica-
tion, bu t at the sam e tim e an anxiety abou t
d rifting into the role of ‘ad vocate’ or even ‘a c-
tivist’, as this exchange d em onstrates:
Researcher 8: A hypothetical case, let’s imagine the
scientific community has a very clear view that
the M armara earthquake is going to happen in
five years time, and it is going to be magnitude
8. Then what is your responsibility, when people
are not reached by standard geoscience commu-
6
 AN N ALS OF GEOPH YSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/ AG-7593
nication? This is how I face this problem. Then
you really have to push the boundaries and tell
the people that they should move away from the
boundary [… ] but I am already in the activist
part.
Researcher 2: Y ou’re looking at the human aspect,
not at the scientific aspect. A s a human being,
when you see that something bad will happen
very soon, then of course you will push people
and try to fix the problem [...]. A s a scientist you
just have to do the research, get the information
and share it.
Researcher 8: But I absolutely don’t feel like this –
this is my scientific part and this is my human
part [...] I don’t understand why geoscience
should be communicated in a very specific, nar-
row way, for example centred on geohazards.
Then people might know something about the
physics, but they don’t really do anything in
their daily lives. A nd this is the challenge.
Researcher 7: Y ou could make sure that you inform
the public better, so that they can find a way
around this corrupt system so that people are in-
formed to really make decisions.
Researcher 10: But this is really complicated.
This d isagreem ent abou t roles and responsibili-
ties of geoscientists in the risk com m u nication
process su ggest that the m u ltitu d e of factors
that influ ence how risk com m u nication is per-
ceived , interpreted and translated by inhabit-
ants of at-risk com m u nities is equ ally recog-
nised by scientists. Despite this, there w as con-
sensu s am ong the grou p on the necessity to
m ore effectively connect w ith at-risk com m u ni-
ties in ord er to red u ce their seism ic vu lnerabil-
ity. In ad d ressing this, how ever, there w as u n-
certainty abou t w hether the you ng geoscien-
tists had the app ropriate skillset to su ccessfu lly
engage w ith lay au d iences. Som e felt confid ent
in this aspect, giving personal exam ples of sci-
ence–pu blic interactions, su ch as encou nters
w ith local resid ents in the cou rse of their field
w ork, incid ents in w hich they “had to get in-
form ation from local people”, and w ere asked
to “explain” w hat “they are d oing”. In that con-
text, som e su p port for the valu e of a m ore par-
ticipatory ap proach em erged :
Researcher 6: W hy do you think that only the geo-
scientists give the information? M aybe there are
things that you don’t know, and that only an ordi-
nary person knows. For example when you go to the
field, [...] to a little village, if you are working on a
recent event of that region, you go to the manager of
the village, and you talk to him, for example “Have
you ever had any floods in this area?” It is a com-
munication situation and you learn from a person
that is not a geoscientist.
More generally, how ever, the researchers felt
insu fficiently skilled in com m u nication to reach
be-yond the acad em ic and p rofessional geosci-
ence com m u nity. Interaction w ith lay au d ien c-
es w as ju d ged a ‘rather u nknow n territory’.
Given this perceived skills d eficit, d ebate
em erged abou t w hether it w as m ore effective
to ‘pinp oint the com m u nication talents’ w ithin
the geoscience com m u nity or instead to engage
in interd isciplinary research collaborations. Li-
aising w ith social scientists w ere pr oposed , as
w as w orking w ith interm ed iaries or translators
- m ed ia rep resentatives, N GOs or even artists -
to m ore effectively share know led ge w ith peo-
ple on the grou nd . This brief exchange captu res
the essence of that d isagreem ent:
Researcher 10: Our responsibility is to produce sci-
ence and use other scientists who can talk to
people, like anthropologists, sociologists or peo-
ple who have studied philosophy, psychology,
this kind of stuff... M y point is that we need a
bridge to communicate with the people. W e can-
not communicate directly. W e need a translator.
Researcher 3: Or translate it ourselves.
Researcher 2: It won´t be that easy for us.
The im plications arising from these w orkshop
d iscu ssions are exam ined in d etail by Ickert
and Stew art (2016), bu t here w e highlight the
basic d ilem m a: com m u nicating d irectly w ith
at-risk com m u nities is recognised as being im -
portant bu t there w as a general anxiety abou t
how easily or effectively geoscientists can
ad opt su ch a p articip atory app roach. In this
regard , the early-career geoscientists raise criti-
cal qu estions abou t how best to integrate other
d isciplinary perspectives, particu larly those
from the social sciences, into their geo -risk ex-
7
 AN N ALS OF GEOPH YSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/ AG-7593
pertise. Stim u lated by these m ethod ological
d ialogu es, the follow ing sections su m m arise
som e key find ings that have em erged from
broad er social science d iscou rses on risk com -
m u nication.
3. FAULTY COMMUN ICATION S -
TOWARD S A SOCIAL SCIEN CE OF
CON VEYIN G SEISMIC RISK
3.1 The Risk Perception Paradox
‘The majority of people at risk from earthquakes do
little or nothing to reduce their vulnerability’ (Sol-
berg et al., 2010, p.1663).
The conventional w ay of com m u nicating risk is
throu gh ed u cation cam p aigns that raise pu blic
aw areness of hazard threats. This ap proach
rests on the assu m ption that ind ivid u als or
com m u nities w ith high hazard aw areness are
m ore likely to respond to w arnings and u nd er-
take prepared ness m easu res than ind ivid u als
or com m u nities w ith a low er/ d eficient hazard
aw areness. Increase an ind ivid u al’s perception
of a threat, the assu m ption goes, and you im -
prove their prepared ness. Dem eritt and N or b-
ert (2014) d escribe this ap p roach to risk com -
m u nication either u nd er the term “risk m es-
sage m od el”, referring to the belief that sou nd
risk com m u nication is abou t faithfu lly tran s-
m itting risk inform ation w ithou t d istortion, or
u nd er the term of a “risk instru m ent m od el”, a
com m u nication approach w ith the goal to elicit
certain cognitive or behaviou ral responses in
the target au d iences that are ad d ressed (De-
m eritt and N orbert, 2014). H ow ever, several
d ecad es of social science research ind icates that
there can be little or no correlation betw een the
provision of scientific inform ation abou t geo-
physical hazard s and risks and the ad option of
prep ared ness m easu res by ind ivid u als or
com m u nities (Palm and H od gson, 1992; Palm ,
1998; Spittal et al., 2008; Solberg et al., 2010;
Wood et al., 2011). While the hazard scientist is
steeped in p robabilistic or d eterm inistic thin k-
ing abou t the chances or im pacts of an extrem e
event, the statistical likelihood of a d isaster is
barely taken into accou nt w hen ord inary peo-
ple m ake ju d gm ents abou t perceived risk lev-
els, and the perceived m agnitu d e of a d isaster
seem s equ ally to be of little im portance. In-
stead , there is a grow ing appreciation of the
role of socio-cu ltu ral, cognitive and em otional
variables in risk perception and behaviou r.
Solberg et al. (2010) provid e a com p rehensive
review of how people think, feel and act abou t
seism ic risk ad ju stm ent, argu ing that ind ivid u -
al or collective aw are-ness is shaped by a m yri-
ad of social factors, p sych ological biases and
cu ltu ral norm s, inclu d ing experience, opti-
m ism , d em ographic characteristics (gend er,
age, statu s), perceptions of fate and fatalism ,
ind ivid u al and com m u nity feelings of control,
self-efficacy and em pow erm ent, as w ell as the
d egree of tru st in experts and au thorities. All of
these risk m ed iators are sensitive to cu ltu ral
and political contexts, and all need to be con-
sid ered if risk com m u nication is to be tru ly ef-
fective.
The ‘risk perception p arad ox’ (Wachinger et al.,
2013) contend s that if risk perception is only
loosely related to risk ad ju stm ent, then sim ply
d issem inating inform ation on seism ic hazard
and societal vu lnerability to exposed p opu la-
tions m ay not m otivate m eaningfu l risk red u c-
tion behaviou r. This reap praisal rests on a
broad er rejection by com m u nication practition-
ers of the over-reliance on factu al inform ation
in conveying scientific issu es to the pu blic
(Bu rns et al., 2003; N isbet, 2009). After all, the
‘facts’ arou nd com plex scientific issu es a re of-
ten contested even by the experts, and the sam e
technical p roblem can be presented in very d if-
ferent w ays to elicit m arked ly contrasting r e-
sponses. In the febrile atm osphere of natu ral
em ergencies and crisis situ ations it can be ex-
pected that ‘facts will be repeatedly misapplied and
twisted in direct proportion to their relevance to the
political debate and decision-making’ (N isbet and
Mooney, 2009, p.56), w ith the resu lt that even
‘… compelling scientific information often runs
aground almost as soon as it is launched into the
choppy waters of public discourse’ (Weber and
Word , 2001, p.488).
The social p sychology of how people receive
and process inform ation abou t risk d ecisions is
com plex and contested , and the im plications
this has for science com m u n ication in general
are d iscu ssed elsew here (e.g. Jam ieson et al.,
2017; N ational Acad em ies of Sciences, Engi-
8
 AN N ALS OF GEOPH YSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/ AG-7593
neering, and Med icine, 2017). H ow ever, the
head line m essages that have em erged from
several d ecad es of hu m an and behaviou ral r e-
search are neatly su m m arised by Corm ick
(2014) (Fig. 3):
1. ‘when information is complex, people make deci-
sions based on their values and beliefs’;
2. ‘people seek affirmation of their attitudes or be-
liefs, no matter how strange those views are’.
This tend ency m eans that ind ivid u als w ill
reject inform ation or evid ence that are
cou nter to those attitu d es and beliefs (Ka-
han et al., 2010); the fact that new infor-
m ation consistent w ith one’s beliefs is m ore
easily seen as reliable and inform ative than
inform ation that d iscred its one’s initial be-
liefs explains w hy beliefs change very slow -
ly and are qu ite end u ring in the face of con-
trary evid ence (N isbett and Ross, 1980).
3. ‘people most trust those whose values mirror their
own’. They tend to look to others arou nd
them for social clu es on how to act, w hich
can either accentu ate or d ecrease social ac-
ceptance of the risk of a given issu e (Kahan
Figure 3: Social science research highlights a few headline messages of how people make decisions about complex and con-
tested environmental concerns (after Cormick, 2014).
et al., 2010). As a consequ ence, ind ivid u als
generally m ake m ore risky or extrem e d eci-
sions as part of a grou p than as an ind ivid -
u al;
4. ‘attitudes that were not formed by logic or facts, are
not influenced by logical or factual arguments’;
5. ‘public concerns about contentious science are al-
most never about the science - and scientific infor-
mation therefore does little to influence these con-
cerns.’
The notion that logical and factu al argu m ents
m ay be su bord inate to valu e ju d gem ents and
instinctive thinking in d eterm ining how people
m ake sense of technically com plex issu es has
im portant im plications for how the geoscience
com m u nity conveys its science to the pu blic.
After all, conventionally, geoscientists tend to
bu ild com m u nication strategies arou nd con-
veying clear, sim ple explanations of the tech-
nical d etail. They d o so becau se that is w hat
geoscientists have been trained to d o, becau se
it is that technical know -how that d efines their
ow n u nd erstand ing of the problem , and b e-
cau se other cru cial stakehold ers - regu lators,
engineers, planners and law yers - d em and it.
9
 AN N ALS OF GEOPH YSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/ AG-7593

Figure 4: In the context of community conflicts, Sandman (1993) argues that ‘risk’ is a product of ‘hazard x outrage’. Re-
ducing risk can be achieved by lowering outrage through adjusting the levels of the primary components of community
anxiety.

Bu t m arshalling the scientific facts, illu strating
them w ith sim ple graphics, and explaining
them u nclu ttered by jargon, seem s u nlikely to
ad d ress pu blic concerns:
‘It is not enough to assure that scientifically sound
information – including evidence of what sci-entists
themselves believe – is widely disseminated: cultural
cognition strongly motivates individuals – of all
worldviews – to recognize such information as
sound in a selective pattern that reinforces their cul-
tural predispositions. To overcome this effect, com-
municators must attend to the cultural meaning as
well as the scientific content of information’ (Kahan
et al., 2010, p.23).
3.2 Risk = Hazard x Outrage
Und erstand ing the social and cu ltu ral constru c-
tion of risk is recognised to be at the heart of
com m u nity-centred p articipatory approaches
to d isaster risk red u ction. It is a notion rooted
strongly in the p sychom etric m od el of risk per-
ception (Fischhoff et al., 1978; Slovic, 1987 and
1989; Slovic et al., 1991; Fischhoff, 1995), w hich
d econvolves the com posite pu blic view of
‘risky’ scientific issu es. The ‘psychom etric’ risk
parad igm has been w id ely applied by San d -
m an (1987, 1989, and 1993), w ho contend s that
m ost local environm ental controversies com -
prise tw o com peting fram es. The first is a tech-
nical fram ing of the problem , involving arg u -
m ents abou t the scientific analysis of the haz-
ard s that are perceived to threaten a com m u n i-
ty. The second relates to the social context
w ithin w hich those hazard s exist and the pr o-
cesses by w hich a com m u nity’s anxieties fu els
collective anger. Accord ing to Sand m an (1993),
that com m u nity anger is rooted in a range of
concerns – inclu d ing tru st, control, volu ntari-
ness, d read , and fam iliarity – w hich he collec-
tively term s ‘ou trage factors’ (Fig. 4).
Sandman (1993) contends that when the experts
and the public disagree about the technical as-
pects (such as the magnitude of a particular threat
or its probability of occurrence), the experts are

10
 AN N ALS OF GEOPH YSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/ AG-7593
more likely to be correct. And yet, although scien-
tists readily point out how the public often mis-
perceives the hazard, they rarely acknowledge
that they themselves pay little attention to that
component of the perceived risk that is socially
constructed.
‘The experts, when they talk about risk, focus on haz-
ard and ignore outrage. They therefore tend to overes-
timate the risk when the hazard is high and the outrage
is low, and underestimate the risk when the hazard is
low and the outrage is high - because all they are doing
is looking at the hazard. The public, in precise parallel,
focuses on outrage and ignores hazard. The public,
therefore, overestimates the risk when the outrage is
high and the hazard is low, and underestimates the risk
when the outrage is low and the hazard is high’
(Sandman, 1993, p.8).
The public’s concerns - the social risk - is fre-
quently dismissed by scientific experts as being
irrational, unfounded or manipulated, even
though it is evident from community protests
that the resulting anxiety, fear and anger is argu-
ably more tangible and measureable than the u n-
derlying hazard. In the context of community
conflicts, Sandman suggests that the technical
view of risk as a product of ‘hazard x vulnerabil-
ity’ is more usefully reformulated as being a
product of ‘hazard x outrage’. This, in turn, sets
the template for risk communication strategies.
‘Two things are true in the typical risk controversy:
People overestimate the hazard and people are out-
raged. To decide how to respond, we must know which
is mostly cause and which is mostly effect. If people are
outraged because they overestimate the hazard, the so-
lution is to explain the hazard better. But if they over-
estimate the hazard because they are outraged, the so-
lution is to figure out why they are outraged - and
change it.’
3.3 Risk D ialogues and Honest Brokers
‘… public participation measures are probably the
most effective means to create awareness of potential
disasters, to enhance trust in public authorities, and
to encourage citizens to take more personal respon-
sibility for protection and disaster preparedness. It
will be a major challenge for risk management and
also an important research topic for future research
to understand people’s responses to natural hazards
as well as a combination of natural and technologi-
cal hazards and to design the most appropriate
measures for effective risk communication, stake-
holder involvement, and emergency preparedness’
(Wachinger et al., 2013).
An alternative app roach to conventional risk
m essage m od el of com m u nication is the “risk
d ialogu e m od el”, w hich is based on the belief
that the d iverse expertise of m ix of civil society
actors m u st be system atically anchored if a rel-
evant solu tion to red u ce vu lnerability is to be
fou nd (Dem eritt and N orbert, 2014). Engaging
w ith the w id er civil society in a m ore particip a-
tory w ay abou t earthqu ake threats m eans fram -
ing seism ic risk com m u nication not sim ply as
the conventional one-w ay transfer of infor-
m ation from the technical expert to the ‘end
u ser’, bu t also as a tw o-w ay exchange w ith
stakehold er grou ps abou t w hat concerns them .
In short, p araphrasing Latou r (1994), it requ ires
a m ind set shift from con veying ‘m atters of fact’
to d eveloping d ialogu es arou nd ‘m atters of
concern’, recognizing that shared rather than
u nid irectional flow s of inform ation are m ore
likely to prom ote know led ge and attitu d e
change (Stew art and Lew is, 2017). Scientific
and technical inform ation are necessary for this
process, bu t are not the sole basis on w hich d e-
cisions or actions are m ad e. When accessible
scientific inform ation abou t a contested scien-
tific issu e is p resented in w ell-organized social
sp aces in w hich ord inary people can form and
express their opinions, the pu blic can actively
particip ate in scientific d ecision m aking:
‘It appears that people understand some things quite
well, although their path to knowledge may be quite
different from that of the technical experts… given
an atmosphere of trust in which both experts and
lay persons recognize that each group may have
something to contribute to the discussion, exchange
of information and deepening of perspectives may
well be possible’ (Slovic, 1985, p.170).
Whether d irected at the pu blic or at policy
m akers, m ore effective com m u nication em er g-
es from p articipatory engagem ent and d ialogu e
11
 AN N ALS OF GEOPH YSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/ AG-7593
w ith ind ivid u als and com m u nities (Wachinger
et al., 2012).
Particip ation processes allow the pu blic to gain
know led ge and personal agency w ith respect
to risks and p rotective m easu res, and au thor i-
ties to gain know led ge from the “lay ex-
perts”/ the pu blic and to collect id eas for
m easu res that are effective for the given pop u -
lation. Ind ivid u als and com m u nities can be risk
am plifiers or inhibitors. Thu s, as w ell as gau g-
ing the intrinsic vu lnerability of those living in
hazard -p rone settings, collective conversations
provid e the expert w ith a valu able inform ation
archive. These d ialogu es can reveal a social
m em ory of p ast events and highlight how pre-
ventative m easu res m ay be bu ilt into trad ition-
al practices and vernacu lar architectu re. Final-
ly, a shared responsibility for solu tions in su ch
a d ialogu e situ ation can also prom ote the social
im plem entation of them .
Yet, d espite its app arent benefits, a m ore par-
ticipatory app roach raises ethical d ilem m as for
a geoscientist, not least of w hich is the potential
d rift aw ay from being a neu tral m ed iator of in-
d epend ent know led ge to a particip ant that is
engaged w ith, or perhaps even em bed d ed in,
com m u nity concerns. The scientist as an ‘ad v o-
cate’ or even ‘activist’ for a specific cou rse of
action is one that m any - experts and non -
experts alike - are u ncom fortable w ith. In d is-
tingu ishing d ifferent ‘kind s’ of scientist, Pielke
(2007) highlights the im portant role of the
‘honest broker’ - the specialist w ho can inte-
grate stakehold er concerns w ith available sci-
entific know led ge to open u p and inform a
range of options. Draw ing on the fau lty com -
m u nications and their epistem ological roots
d u ring the Tu hoku and Fu kishim a catastrophe,
Lacassin and Lavelle (2016) highlight the re-
sponsibility of com m u nicating u ncertainties
throu gh su ch ‘honest brokers’. Accord ing to
the au thors, they need not only to focu s on the
d ecision -relevant elem ents of that com m u n i-
cated u ncertainties, bu t also u ncover the u ncer-
tainties that scientists fail or avoid to m ention
becau se of d om inant com m u nication para-
d igm s, argu ing that:
‘… to promote real democratic and open debate and
choices, [scientists] have the responsibility to com-
municate and properly explain all uncertainties and
unknowns to the technical and political sphere as
well as to the rest of the society’ (Lacassin and
Lavelle, 2016, p.57).
As honest brokers, effective geoscience com -
m u nication becom es not sim ply a case of secu r-
ing pu blic acceptance, bu t, rather, of secu ring
pu blic tru st. It is argu ably m ore im portant to
bu ild tru st than to bu ild technical u nd erstan d -
ing becau se tru st is u sed by people as a su rr o-
gate tool - a cognitive shortcu t - for red u cing
the com plexity of scientific inform ation. And it
is that tru st that w ill be cru cial later if w arnings
and other types of vital inform ation are to be
taken seriou sly d u ring an em ergency
(Wachinger et al., 2013). Those scientific bro-
kers w ho genu inely engage w ith affected
com m u nities are likely to have a particu larly
privileged place in the d eliberative process b e-
cau se, in ad d ition to their grasp of technical
com plexity, they w ill be afford ed a high d egree
of pu blic tru st. Yet that elevated d egree of in-
flu ence, and the anticipated co-prod u ction of
know led ge that accom panies a com m u nity-
centred app roach, m ay m ake m any geoscien-
tists anxiou s that their m u ch valu ed ind epen d -
ence w ill be com prom ised .
4. CON CLUSION S
The ethical responsibility of scientists is the
com m u nication of balanced factu al infor-
m ation, yet the relative prom inence given to
those facts is cru cial. To convey a scientific
m essage in a w ay that gains w id e acceptance
requ ires a sim plified m essage strip ped of the
u su al technical caveats. The ethical bu rd en that
this places on the science com m u nicator as an
honest broker of know led ge is obviou s. The
clim ate science com m u nicator Stephen Schnei-
d er d u bbed it the ‘d ou ble ethical bind ’, noting
that ‘Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest. I hope
that means being both’ (Schneid er, 2002, p.498).
The challenge for those w orking in d isaster risk
com m u nication is how to convey w hat they
know honestly and effectively to those people
w ho can benefit from that know led ge. In term s
of the form er, it requ ires hazard scientists to
better u nd erstand the social psychology of how
12
 AN N ALS OF GEOPH YSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/ AG-7593
people receive and process inform ation, and in
d oing so learn how best to fram e the intrica-
cies, u ncertainties and lim itations of their intr i-
cate technical science in w ays that are m ore
easily grasped by lay au d iences. In u niversities
and research institu tes it w ill be cru cial to train
the next generation of geoscientists in the sci-
ence and art of com m u nication, being m ore
jou rnalistic and m ed ia-savvy in the w ay w e
com m u nicate, and m ore im aginative in explor-
ing new com m u nication channels, su ch as w eb -
based platform s, social m ed ia. The new reality
is that in tim es of the crisis factu al scientific in-
form ations can be qu ickly (m inu tes to hou rs)
transm itted throu gh social m ed ia (e.g. Tw itter,
Facebook), thereby helping people to ap preci-
ate the geop hysical u nd erstand ing of an ongo-
ing natu ral event. In the sam e w ay, how ever,
m isinform ation or m isconceived facts can
equ ally prom inently be instantly relayed ,
m eaning that pu blic tru st in honest scientific
brokers m u st be m aintained . For this reason,
alongsid e the obviou s appeal of new , rem ote
m obile technologies and d igital com m u nica-
tions, face-to-face encou nters w ill be critical for
effective com m u nity-centred d isaster d ia-
logu es. In those encou nters, geoscientists
shou ld expect to m eet the p u blic in their ow n
com m u nity sp aces - in schools, places of w or-
ship, civic halls and social clu bs. In ad d ition,
d eliberative form ats su ch a ‘Reallabore’ (Mar-
qu ard t and West, 2016), science shops (Schlierfs
and Meyer, 2013) or variou s form ats of infor-
m al, d ialogu e-oriented citizen p articip ation
(Kam lage et al., 2018) are im portant foru m s
w here m ore d irect tw o-w ay com m u nication
ap proaches betw een d ifferent stakehold ers can
take place.
Bu t as w ell as being m ore effective, geoscien-
tists need to better ap preciate that their seism ic
risk com m u nications are u nd ertaken in con-
tested socio-political contexts and bring ethical
d ilem m as. The expert technical know led ge of
the earthqu ake geoscientist m ay be afford ed a
heightened d egree of tru st by those ind ivid u als
and com m u nities m ost at risk, bu t th at brings
resp onsibility. Ironically, the m ore effectively a
potential seism ic threat is com m u nicated by the
geoscientist, the m ore that scientific m essage
w ill be norm alized into the com plex, chaotic
and contested d iscou rses of d aily life. Partici-
patory-based engagem ent strategies anticip ate
technical experts taking accou nt of these local
socio-cu ltu ral, em otional and even political
d im ensions of risk in w orking d irectly w ith
vu lnerable com m u nities. In su ch circu m stan c-
es, scientific risk m essages can becom e h ijacked
by or assim ilated into social, econom ic and p o-
litical controversies. The challenge for those
w orking at the contested frontline of seism ic
risk com m u nications w ill be balancing the eth i-
cal bind s that continu e to constrain u s in ou r
role as honest brokers
ACKN OWLEDGEMEN TS
All three au thors gratefu lly acknow led ge the
financial su p port of the EU Marie Cu rie Initial
Training N etw orks program m e ‘ALErT’ (An a-
tolian pLateau clim ate and tectonic hazard s)
and IS w as ad d itionally su pp orted by the
N ERC-ESRC-AH RC Global Challenges Re-
search Fu nd project ‘Research for Em ergency
Aftershock Forecasting’ (REAR). We thank Da-
vid Mogk and an anonym ou s review er for co n-
stru ctive com m ents that im proved the m an u -
script, and to Giu seppe Di Capu a for su p port-
ing the paper throu gh the review ing process.
REFEREN CES
Alexand er D.E. (2010). The L'Aqu ila earth-
qu ake of 6 April 2009 and Italian Gover n-
m ent policy on d isaster resp onse. Jou rnal of
N atu ral Resou rces Policy Research, 2(4),
325-342.
Alexand er D.E. (2014). Com m u nicating earth-
qu ake risk to the pu blic: the trial of the
“L’Aqu ila Seven”. N atu ral H azard s, 72(2),
1159-1173.
Arm ijo R., Meyer B., H u bert A., and Barka A.
(1999). Westw ard propagation of the N orth
Anatolian fau lt into the northern Aegean:
Tim ing and kinem atics. Geology, 27(3), 267-
270.
Bau d oin M.A., H enly-Shep ard S., Fernand o N .,
Sitati A., and Zom m ers Z. (2016). From top -
d ow n to “com m u nity-centric” ap proaches
to early w arning system s: exploring path-
w ays to im prove d isaster risk red u ction
throu gh com m u nity participation. Interna-
tional Jou rnal of Disaster Risk Science, 7(2),
163-174.
13
 AN N ALS OF GEOPH YSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/ AG-7593
Bendito A. and Barrios E. (2016). Convergent
agency: Encouraging transdisciplinary ap-
proaches for effective climate change adapta-
tion and disaster risk reduction. International
Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 7(4), 430-435.
Bohnhoff M., Bu lu t F., Dresen G., Malin P.E.,
Eken T., and Aktar M. (2013). An earth-
qu ake gap sou th of Istanbu l. N atu re Com -
m u nications, 4.
Bu rns T.W., O’Connor D.J. and Stocklm ayer
S.M. (2003). Science Com m u nication: a con-
tem porary d efinition. Pu blic Und erstand ing
of Science, 12, 183-202.
Clancey G. (2006). Earthquake Nation. The Cultur-
al Politics of Japanese Seismicity, 1868-1930.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Cormick C. (2014). Community Attitudes Towards
Science and Technology in Australia. CSIRO, 26p.
Dem eritt D. and N obert S. (2014). Mod els of
best practice in flood risk com m u nication
and m anagem ent. Environm ental H azard s,
13(4), 313-328.
DeVasto D., Graham S.S. and Zam p aru tti L.
(2016). Stasis and Matters of Concern: The
Conviction of the L’Aqu ila Seven. Jou rnal of
Bu siness and Technical Com m u nication,
30(2), 131-164.
Di Capu a G. and Pep poloni S. (2014). Geoethi-
cal aspects in the natu ral hazard s m anage-
m ent, pp. 59-62. In: Lollino G., Arattano M.,
Giard ino M., Oliveira R., Peppoloni S.
(Ed s.), Engineering Geology for Society and
Territory - Volu m e 7, Ed u cation, Profes-
sional Ethics and Pu blic Recognition of En-
gineering Geology, XVII, 274 p., Springer,
ISBN : 978-3-319-09302-4.
Drake J.L., Kontar Y.Y., Eichelberger J.C., Ru pp
S.T., and Taylor K.M. (Ed s.) (2015). Com -
m u nicating Clim ate-Change and N atu ral
H azard Risk and Cu ltivating Resilience:
Case Stu d ies for a Mu lti-d isciplinary Ap-
proach, Vol. 45, Sp ringer.
Dolce M. and Di Bu cci D. (2014). Risk m an-
agem ent: roles and responsibilities in the
d ecision-m aking process. In: Wyss M. and
Peppoloni S. (Ed s.), Geoethics: ethical chal-
lenges and case stu d ies in Earth Sciences,
450 p., Elsevier, Waltham , Massachu setts,
ISBN : 9780127999357.
Eraybar K., Okazaki K. and Ilki A. (2010). An
exploratory stu d y on percep tions of seism ic
risk and m itigation in tw o d istricts of Istan-
bu l. Disasters, 34(1), 71-92.
Erd ik M., Şeşetyan K., Dem ircioğlu M.,
H ancılar U. and Zü lfikar C. (2011). Rapid
earthqu ake loss assessm ent after d am aging
earthqu akes. Soil Dynam ics and Earthqu ake
Engineering, 31(2), 247-266.
Erd ik M. (2013). Earthqu ake risk in Tu rkey.
Science, 341, 72.
Fischhoff, B., (1995). Risk perception and com -
m u nication u nplu gged : tw enty years of
process, Risk Analysis, 15, 137–145.
Fischhoff B., Slovic P., Lichtenstein S., Read S.,
and Com bs B. (1978). H ow safe is safe
enou gh? A psychom etric stu d y of attitu d es
tow ard s technological risks and benefits.
Policy Sciences, 9, 127-152.
Fischhoff B. and Davis A.L. (2014). Com m u ni-
cating scientific u ncertainty. Proceed ings of
the N ational Acad em y of Sciences of the
United States of Am erica, 111, 13664-13671.
Geschw ind C.-H . (1997). 1920s Pred iction Re-
veals Som e Pitfalls of Earthqu ake Forecast-
ing. Eos, Vol. 78, (38), 401-412.
Geschw ind C.-H . (2001). California Earth-
qu akes: Science, Risk, and th e Politics of
H azard Mitigation. Baltim ore and Lond on:
Johns H opkins University Press.
Gibson M. and Gökşin Z.A. (2016). N eighbou r-
hood Regeneration in Istanbu l – from
Earthqu ake Mitigation to Planned Dis-
placem ent and Gentrification. International
Planning H istory Society Proceed ings,
17(2).
Green R.A. (2008). Unau thorised Developm ent
and Seism ic H azard Vu lnerability: a stu d y
of squ atters and engineers in Istanbu l, Tu r-
key. Disasters, 32(3), 358-376.
Gu ̈n grm u ̈ş Z., Karabu lu tlu E.Y. and Yıld ız E.,
(2012). Determ ining the know led ge and be-
havior of the ind ivid u als abou t earthqu ake
prep ared ness at hom e in Tu rkey. H ealth-
MED, 6 (1), 232-237.
H all S.S. (2011). Scientists on Trial: At Fau lt?
N atu re, 477 (14 Septem ber), 264-9.
H ori T., Pinar A., N ecm ioglu O., H ori M. and
N ishizaw a A. (2017). Special issu e “The
next Marm ara earthqu ake: d isaster m itig a-
14
 AN N ALS OF GEOPH YSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/ AG-7593
tion, recovery, and early w arning”. Earth,
Planets and Space, 69(1), 65.
Ickert J. and Stew art I.S. (2016). From geoscien-
tific “m atters of fact” to societal “m atters of
concern”: a transd isciplinary training ap-
proach to com m u nicating earthqu ake risk
in Istanbu l (Tu rkey). N atu ral H azard s and
Earth System Sciences, 16(1), 1-1.
Islam T. and Sakızlıoğlu B. (2015). The making of,
and resistance to, state-led gentrification in Is-
tanbul, Turkey. Global gentrifications: Une-
ven development and displacement, 245.
Ismail-Zadeh A.T., Cutter S.L., Takeuchi K. and
Paton D. (2017). Forging a paradigm shift in
disaster science. N atural H azards, 86(2), 969-
988.
Jam ieson K.H ., Kahan D., and Scheu fele D.A.
(Ed s.) (2017). The Oxford H and book of the
Science of Science Com m u nication, Oxford
University Press.
Joffe H., Rossetto T., Solberg C., and O’Connor C.
(2013). Social representations of earthquakes:
A study of people living in three highly seis-
mic areas. Earthquake Spectra, 29(2), 367-397.
Jord an T.H . (2013). Lessons of L’Aqu ila for op-
erational earthqu ake forecasting. Seism o-
logical Research Letters, 84, 1, 4-7.
Kahan D.M., Jenkins‐Sm ith H . and Bram an D.
(2011). Cu ltu ral cognition of scientific con-
sensu s. Jou rnal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147-
174.
Kamlage J.H. and N anz P. (2017). Crisis and par-
ticipation in the European Union: energy poli-
cy as a test bed for a new politics of citizen
participation. Global Society, 31(1), pp. 65-82.
Kam lage J.-H ., Richter I., and N anz P. (2018).
An d en Grenzen d er Bü rgerbeteiligu ng: In-
form elle d ialogorientierte Bü rger-
beteiligu ng im N etzau sbau d er Ener-
giew end e. In: H and bu ch Energiew end e
u nd Partizipation, pp. 627-642, Sp ringer.
Karam an O. (2008). Urban pu lse - (re)m aking
sp ace for globalization in Istanbu l. Urban
Geography, 29(6), 518-525.
Karam an O. (2013). Urban renew al in Istanbu l:
Reconfigu red sp aces, robotic lives. Interna-
tional Jou rnal of Urban and Regional Re-
search, 37(2), 715-733.
Karanci N . (2013). Facilitating com m u nity par-
ticipation in d isaster risk m anagem ent: Risk
perception and prepared ness behaviou rs in
Tu rkey. In: Joffe H ., Rossetto T. and Ad am s
J. (Ed s.), Cities at Risk, Sp ringer N ether-
land s, 93-108.
Kelm an I. and Glantz M.H . (2014). Early w arn-
ing system s d efined . In: Red u cing d isaster:
early w arning system s for clim ate change,
Springer N etherland s, 89-108.
Ku yu cu T. (2014). Law , Prop erty and Am bigu i-
ty: The Uses and Abu ses of Legal Am bigu i-
ty in Rem aking Istanbu l's Inform al Settle-
m ents. International Jou rnal of Urban and
Regional Research, 38(2), 609-627.
Lacassin R. and Lavelle S. (2016). The crisis of a
parad igm . A m ethod ological interpret ation
of Tohoku and Fu ku shim a catastrophe.
Earth-Science Review s, 155, 49-59.
Latou r B. (2004). Why has critiqu e ru n ou t of
steam ? From m atters of fact to m atters of
concern. Critical Inqu iry, 30 (2), 225-248.
Liverm an D.G. (2008). Environm ental geosci-
ence: com m u nication challenges. In: Liver-
m an D. (ed .), Com m u nicating Environm en-
tal Geoscience, Geological Society, Lond on,
Special Pu blications, 305(1), 197-209.
Le Pichon X., Cham ot‐Rooke N ., Rangin C. and
Sengör A.M.C. (2003). The N orth An atolian
fau lt in the Sea of Marm ara. Jou rnal of Geo-
physical Research: Solid Earth, 108(B4).
Marquardt E. and West C. (2016). Co-Produktion
von Wissen in der Stadt. Reallabor “Urban Of-
fice–Nachhaltige Stadtentwicklung in der
Wissensgesellschaft” an der Universität Hei-
delberg. Technikfolgenabschätzung–Theorie
Und Praxis, 25(3), 26-31.
Marzocchi W. (2012). Pu tting science on trial.
Physics World , 25(12), 17.
Michaels D. (2006). Manu factu red u ncertainty.
Annals of the N ew York Acad em y of Sci-
ences, 1076(1), p p.149-162.
Michaels D. and Monforton C. (2005). Manu fac-
tu ring u ncertainty: contested science and
the protection of the pu blic’s health and en-
vironm ent. Am erican Jou rnal of Pu blic
H ealth, 95(S1), p p.S39-S48.
Mu cciarelli M. (2014). Som e com m ents on the
first d egree sentence of the “L’Aqu ila trial”.
In: Wyss M. and Peppoloni S. (Ed s.), Geo-
ethics: ethical challenges and case stu d ies in
Earth Sciences, 450 p., Elsevier, Waltham ,
Massachu setts, ISBN : 9780127999357.
15
 AN N ALS OF GEOPH YSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/ AG-7593
N ational Acad em ies of Sciences, En gineering,
and Med icine (2017). Com m u nicating Sci-
ence Effectively: A Research Agend a. Wash-
ington, DC: The N ational Acad em ies Press,
d oi: 10.17226/ 23674.
N isbet M.C. (2009). Com m u nicating clim ate
change: Why fram es m atter for pu blic en-
gagem ent. Environm ent: Science and Policy
for Su stainable Developm ent, 51, 12-23.
N isbet M.C. and Mooney C. (2009). Fram ing
science. Science, 316.
N isbett R.E. and Ross L. (1980). H u m an infer-
ence: Strategies and shortcom ings of social
ju d gm ent. Prentice-H all, Englew ood Cliffs,
N J.
Oral M., Yenel A., Oral E., Ayd in N . and Tu n-
cay T. (2015). Earthqu ake experience and
prep ared ness in Tu rkey. Disaster Preven-
tion and Managem ent, 24(1), 21-37.
Oreskes N . and Conw ay E.M. (2011). Mer-
chants of d ou bt: H ow a hand fu l of scientists
obscu red the tru th on issu es from tobacco
sm oke to global w arm ing. Bloom sbu ry Pu b-
lishing USA.
Oreskes N . (2015). H ow Earth Science H as Be-
com e a Social Science. H istorical Social Re-
search 40, 2, 246-270.
Ow en R., Macnaghten P. and Stilgoe J. (2012).
Responsible research and innovation: From
science in society to science for society, w ith
society. Science and Pu blic Policy, 39(6),
pp.751-760.
Özerd em A. (1999). Tiles, taps and earthqu ake-
proofing: lessons for d isaster m anagem ent
in Tu rkey. Environm ent and Urbanization ,
11(2), 177-180.
Palm R. (1998). Urban earthqu ake hazard s: the
im pacts of cu ltu re on perceived risk and re-
sponse in the USA and Japan. Applied Ge-
ography, 18(1), p p.35-46.
Palm R. and H od gson M.E. (1992). After a Cali-
fornia Earthqu ake: Attitu d e and Behavior
Change. The University of Chicago Press:
Chicago.
Parsons T., Tod a S., Stein R.S., Barka A. and
Dieterich J.H . (2000). H eightened od d s of
large earthqu akes near Istanbu l: an interac-
tion-based probability calcu lation. Science,
288 (5466), 661-665.
Pid geon N ., Dem ski C., Bu tler C., Parkhill K.
and Spence A. (2014). Creating a national
citizen engagem ent process for energy poli-
cy. Proceed ings of the N ational Acad em y of
Sciences, 111 (Su p plem ent 4), pp.13606-
13613.
Pielke Jr R.A. (2007). The honest broker: m ak-
ing sense of science in policy and politics.
Cam brid ge University Press.
Rossetto T., Joffe H . and Solberg C. (2011). A
d ifferent view on hu m an vu lnerability to
earthqu akes: lessons from risk perception
stu d ies. In: Spence R., So E. and Scaw thorn
C. (Ed s.), H u m an Casu alties in Earthqu ake,
Springer N etherland s, 291-304.
Ru stem li A. and Karanci N .A. (1999). Corre-
lates of earthqu ake cognitions and prepa r-
ed ness behaviou r in victim ised popu lation.
The Jou rnal of Social Psychology, 139 (1),
91-101.
Sand m an, P.M. (1987). Risk com m u nication:
facing pu blic ou trage, EPA J., 13, 21-22.
Sand m an, P. M. (1989). H azard versu s ou trage
in the pu blic perception of risk, in: Covello,
V.T. (Ed itor). Effective Risk Com m u nica-
tion, N ew York: Pu tnam Press, 45-49.
Sand m an P.M. (1993). Resp ond ing to com m u -
nity ou trage: strategies for effective risk
com m u nication. Am erican Ind u strial H y-
giene Association, Fairfax, Va.
Schlierf K. and Meyer M. (2013). Situ ating
know led ge interm ed iation: Insights from
science shop s and know led ge brokers. Sci-
ence and Pu blic Policy, 40(4), 430–441.
Schlosser P. and Pfirm an S. (2012). Earth sci-
ence for su stainability. N atu re Geoscience, 5
(9), 587-588.
Schneid er S.H . (2002). Keeping ou t of the box.
Am erican Scientist, 90 (N ov-Dec), 496-498.
Scolobig A., Prior T., Schröter D., Jörin J. and
Patt A. (2015). Tow ard s people-centred ap-
proaches for effective d isaster risk m an-
agem ent: Balancing rhetoric w ith reality. In-
ternational Jou rnal of Disaster Risk Red u c-
tion, 12, p p.202-212.
Shah H .C. (2006). The last m ile: earthqu ake risk
m itigation assistance in d eveloping cou n-
tries. Philosophical transactions - Series A,
Mathem atical, physical, and engineering
sciences, 364(1845), 2183-2189.
Slovic P. (1985). Inform ing and Ed u cating the
Pu blic abou t Risk. Disaster Research Re-
port, Oregon, 80-85.
16
 AN N ALS OF GEOPH YSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/ AG-7593

Slovic P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236 Wachinger G., Renn O., Begg C. and Ku hlicke
(4799), 280-285. C. (2013). The Risk Percep tion Parad ox -
Slovic P. (ed .) (2000). The Perception of Risk. Im plications for Governance and Com m u -
Earthscan, Lond on. nication of N atu ral H azard s. Risk Analysis,
Slovic P., Flynn J.H . and Laym an M. (1991). 33, N o. 6.
Perceived risk, tru st, and the politics of n u - Witte K. and Allen M. (2000). A m eta-analysis
clear w aste. Science, 254 (5038), 1603-1607. of fear ap peals: Im plications for effective
Solberg C., Rossetto T. and Joffe H . (2010). The pu blic health cam paigns. H ealth Ed u cation
social p sychology of seism ic hazard ad - & Behavior, 27(5), 591-615.
ju stm ent: re-evalu ating the international lit- Wood M.M., Mileti D.S., Kano M., Kelley M.M.,
eratu re. N at. H azard s Earth Syst. Sci., 10, Regan R. and Bou rqu e L.B. (2011). Com -
1663-1677. m u nicating Actionable Risk for Terrorism
Stein R.S., Barka A.A. and Dieterich J.H . (1997). and Other H azard s. Risk Analysis, 32, 601-
Progressive failu re on the N orth Anatolian 615.
fau lt since 1939 by earthqu ake stress trig- Yeo M. (2014). Fau lt lines at the interface of sci-
gering. Geophysical Jou rnal International, ence and policy: Interpretative responses to
128(3), 594-604. the trial of scientists in L’Aqu ila. Earth-
Stew art I.S. and N ield T. (2013). Earth stories: Science Review s, 139, 406-419.
context and narrative in the com m u nication
of p opu lar geoscience. Proceed ings of the
Geologists’ Association, 124(4), 699-712.
Stew art I.S. and Lew is D. (2017). Com m u ni-
cating contested geoscience to the pu blic:
Moving from ‘m atters of fact’ to ‘m atters of
concern’. Earth-Science Review s, Vol. 174,
pp.122-133.
Tekeli‐Yeşil S., Dedeoğlu N., Braun‐Fahrlaender
C. and Tanner M. (2010a). Factors m otivat-
ing ind ivid u als to take precau tionary action
for an expected earthqu ake in Istanbu l. Risk
Analysis, 30(8), 1181-1195.
Tekeli‐Yeşil S., Ded eoǧlu N ., Tanner M.,
Brau n‐Fahrlaend er C. and Obrist B. (2010b).
Ind ivid u al pre-p ared ness and m itigation ac-
tions for a p red icted earthqu ake in Istanbu l.
Disasters, 34(4), 910-930.
Tekeli-Yeşil S., Dedeoğlu N., Braun-Fahrlaender
C. and Tanner M. (2011). Earthqu ake aw are-
ness and perception of risk am ong the resi-
d ents of Istanbu l. N atu ral H azard s, 59(1),
427-446.
UN ISDR (2015). The Send ai Fram ew ork for
Disaster Risk Red u ction 2015-2030, United
N ations International Strategy for Disaster
Red u ction, http:/ / w w w .preventionw eb.net
/ files/ 43291_send aifram ew orkford rren.p d f
(accessed 31 Janu ary 2018).
Unsal B.O. (2015). State-led Urban Regenera-
tion in Istanbu l: Pow er stru ggles betw een
interest grou p s and poor com m u nities.
H ou sing Stu d ies, 30(8), 1299-1316.

17